[Editor’s Note: The PLA National Defense University recently created an educational video called “较量无声” (Silent Contest) on the behind-the-scenes battle between China and the United States. [1] General Liu Yazhou, Political Commissar of the military institution and son-in-law of former president Li Xiannian, produced the work. It postulated that the Soviet Union’s collapse was due to the U.S.’ “peaceful revolution.” Using that viewpoint to examine the Sino-U.S. relationship, the video concluded that, while the U.S. has maintained an outward appearance of warmth and peaceful cooperation, beneath the surface it has always been trying to destroy China, using the same methods it applied to the Soviet Union.

To support its premise, the video further outlined five areas in which the U.S. is undermining China: political infiltration, cultural infiltration, public opinion and ideological infiltration, organizational infiltration, and political interference and social infiltration.

Silent Contest circulated widely on the Internet in late October 2013, and began disappearing from Chinese websites on Thursday night, October 31, 2013. [2] Nevertheless, a number of media have commented on it. [3]

Please note that the source of a number of quotes in English could not be identified. Unless the original English source is indicated in the end notes, the quotes in the video are translated from the Chinese text in the video. The translation of the Prelude and Part I of the video have already been published and can be found on the Chinascope website at:
http://chinascope.org/main/content/view/6168/92/.

The following is a translation of Part II.]

Part II 下集 （Silent Contest II）

The word “transgene” refers to a process of modifying a species for a specific need. It involves using the scientific technique of taking a certain needed gene segment from one organism and putting it into another organism to create a new combination of genes. “Transgene” appears to cause no harm to the targeted species, but just uses modern generic technology to introduce a small improvement in that species. However, this tiny generic change, no matter how small it may look, not only destroys the full features of the original species; it also places the new species under the control of the entity that introduced the change.

The U,S. has added transgeneric food to its national strategic resources. Its push for global adoption is in fact a means for the U.S. to realize its control over the world by controlling global food production. Then, having the same goal, will the U.S. design and implement a “political transgeneric” strategy in the arena of an entire society? The answer is for sure, “Yes.”

In 1945, Director of the CIA Allen Dulles told the House Foreign Affairs Committee, “A person’s mind and thoughts can change. If we get a person’s mind to be confused, we can then change his values and concepts unnoticeably and make him believe in these values that have been changed.”

This is by far the most direct and vivid description of the U.S. political transgeneric strategy. In the eyes of U.S. politicians, using the American value system as a weapon to rebuild the world and recreate the international order is the most complete and effective way to carry out political transgeneric transformaton.

Nixon claimed, “While we are changing the material world, we must also strive to transform the world politically. The U.S. has often entered the ideological battlefield without any arms.”

Video clip showing comment by Ji Zhiye, President of the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations:

“Since the Vietnam war, the U.S. has more often chosen the strategy of ‘winning without a war.’ This is a soft war using politics, economics, ideas, and culture as weapons with its advantageous military power as backing. Its first target was the former Soviet Union. The result was the U.S. attained full victory and a complete change of the global structure. The U.S.’ present and future primary target is China.”

After Obama took office, he emphasized “smart power” and strived to win victories without using military force. Thus, his administration has been more keen on implementing a regime change and subversion in certain targeted countries using such methods as the “political transgeneric strategy” or color revolution. It is clear that in the new era, the U.S. has become smarter and more active in the use of political and cultural infiltration and soft war methods. Its “cultural and political infiltration and soft war methods” have not only become a main strategy for the U.S. to maintain its hegemony, but also a stealth weapon of mass destruction that Western politicians use to change the world.

As for China, we should never ignore (this strategy’s) real threat and harm. On the one hand, because of China’s comprehensive national power, the U.S. does not want to face the risk and price tag of sacrificing U.S. interests derived from China. It thus tries to avoid a hard clash as much as possible. On the other hand, the trend of global economic integration and the increasing exchange and cooperation between China and the U.S. have offered the U.S. the possibility of carrying out its secret infiltration and soft attack.

Therefore, for the elites who determine the U.S. master plan, the preferred option is to use the “political transgeneric strategy” as a smart way to control China instead of simply disintegrating it. This is the real meaning of Hillary Clinton’s statement, “Although [the U.S. and China] have traveled different paths, they share a common destination and responsibility.” [13]

From comprehensive research, we can see that the U.S.’ “political transgeneric strategy” has not only already targeted China; it has been carried out secretly on the following five fronts: political infiltration, cultural infiltration, public opinion and ideological infiltration, organizational infiltration, and political interference and social infiltration.

The First Front: Political Infiltration

Conduct political infiltration and use all possible means to increase the external influence on China’s political direction.

China’s reform and opening up is an unprecedented great course. As to the Chinese Communists and the Chinese people, it is a historical process that contains a lot of pain and suffering, but with a bright future in the end. During this process, the Oriental culture and the Western culture will combine and fuse. The opposing ideologies will clash, different social systems will compete with each other, and all kinds of ideas and value systems will infiltrate or fight with each other.

Given this unprecedented situation, we need to answer the question of whether, on a practical basis, socialist China has a better ability to develop than the West. We also need to answer, on a theoretical level, whether China’s socialist path has a superior systematic advantage over the Western capitalist path.

If we say that China has used the miracle of its development to provide the world an accurate answer to the first question, the contest over the second question is far from over.

In their economic cooperation with us, the U.S. and other Western countries have never given up their scheme to “Westernize” or split our country. They take full advantage of their leading position in the international political and economic system. They try to expand their discourse power in the economic field and in the political field. They want to use economic engagement to push for political change in China. Under the banner of democracy, freedom, and human rights, they want to increase their influence over our social transformation and then gradually influence our political transformation. They especially seek, indirectly, to set the direction and steps taken in China’s political system reform.

A Western media carelessly revealed this accurate summarization for certain organizations: “Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are the soft tentacles for the Western countries to realize their national desire.

Presently, given the background of international exchange and cooperation, many Western NGOs have used many reasons to inundate China. Their deep and wide activities are creating an impact that the government would not be able to create, in all elements of Chinese society, especially in people’s political lives.

The U.S.’ Ford Foundation, the International Republican Institute, the Carter Center, and the Asia Foundation have long been doing their utmost to access the grassroots elections in our country and provide different forms of support for the reform of local governance.

Allen C. Choate, former Director of Program Development for China, the Asia Foundation, once admitted, “The reason that Western society is so keen on (promoting grassroots elections and local governance reform) is because from it, they perceive the ‘seeds of democracy’ and the ‘true potential force to drive for China’s democracy.'”

Robert Pastor, former Senior Fellow and Director of programs on democracy, Latin America, and China at the Carter Center expressed it more clearly, “To push for China’s evolution, [we] should not only criticize the government’s stagnation on reform, but also encourage its moves toward freedom.”

In 2004, the U.S. State Department and the Carter Center jointly invited party and government officials and university scholars from our country to form four delegations to go to the U.S. to observe its Presidential election. In a few days, the U.S. arranged intensive visits and seminars and a thoughtful agenda for their whole trip. Their careful investment soon received the needed return.

When the delegations returned home, an official from a city’s people’s congress stated on the web, “Elections are the legal source and ruling foundation for a government to govern. Implementing a country’s power transition via regularly held elections shows the political maturity of modern democratic countries.” He also praised the U.S.’ main-stream media for long abiding by the principles of truth, freedom, speediness, and neutrality, with good professional traits.

Our party and the government officials’ overseas visits have become an important vehicle for those NGOs to add their influence and conduct secret infiltration in a delicate manner. The International Republican Institute, a renowned U.S. think tank, stated, “(We) should establish connections to more Chinese officials who are open to us and focus on educating and training Chinese officials.”

The U.S. embassy in China commissioned some foundations to identify young officials with high potential to send them to the U.S. for training and to visit. Some foundations target our party and government officials at different levels to provide them with long-term “support and aid.”

Several years ago, Joseph S. Nye Jr., then Dean of the Kennedy School of Harvard University pointed out, “Training Chinese officials has become a highly influential project of Harvard University. It has received high priority support from the school of government. We see hope for China in Chinese students.”

The Second Front: Cultural Infiltration

Implement long-term, extensive, and comprehensive cultural infiltration, in order to attempt gradual change of the Chinese people’s ideas, especially those of the younger generation.

Planning and using cultural forces to achieve its own national interests is a consistent strategic project of the U.S. government. It is willing to spend all sorts of national resources to carry it forward on a long-term basis.

In the eyes of the American elites, using cultural forces to promote the Western system and values in an imperceptible manner is not only an effective way to crumble its rival, but also a most important and covert way to shape the world according to the U.S. strategic vision.

A hundred years ago, the President of the University of Illinois, Edmund J. James, reminded then U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, “The nation which succeeds in educating the young Chinese of the present generation will be the nation which, for a given expenditure of effort, will reap the largest possible returns in moral, intellectual, and commercial influence.” [14]

He further said, “If the U.S. could have successfully attracted Chinese students thirty-five years ago, and made it a growing trend, then it would have been able to control China’s development in a most perfect and ingenious way: it would have developed a dominating influence over the leaders of China both intellectually and spiritually.”

He firmly believed, “It is absolutely worth paying for the cost of winning the Chinese youth, even from the point of view of material interests.” “Morality and spirituality will drive commerce more effectively than a military flag.”

Since World War II, the U.S. government has been paying more attention to playing the strategic role of cultural penetration. In 1946, pushed by Senator J. William Fulbright, the U.S. passed Public Law 79-584, an amendment to the Surplus Property Act of 1944, a.k.a. the Fulbright Act. It was the first time the U.S. provided protection for its cultural aggression in the form of legislation.

In 1948, the Congress passed the Smith-Mundt Act, clarifying further the mission and purpose of American cultural diplomacy. Ever since then, cultural infiltration has officially heightened from a foreign cultural relations strategy to a U.S. national strategy. This strategy has not only guided the Cold War culture for decades; in later times, it also became the fundamental basis for the U.S. to implement its cultural hegemony.

Eisenhower believed, “Each dollar spent on external propaganda is equivalent to five dollars spent on defense.”

The U.S. historian Frank Ninkovich said it more bluntly, “In the case where the military can only play a limited role between big powers, especially in the case of modern nuclear warfare, whereas one country cannot completely protect itself from retaliation, culture should become an even more important and powerful penetration tool for the U.S. to overcome barriers.”

To this end, the U.S. government never missed any form and means to use vigor in exporting Western values and ideology to China, including the use of covert means to carry out a number of missionary activities.

American elites believe that the ideal choice of realizing its political transgenic strategy is to pin its long term hope for the peaceful evolution of China on the future generations and on the lowest level of society. Therefore, transforming the ideological values of the young Chinese and implanting the Western belief system starting with the lowest level of the society of China have always been the two main means of attack in the U.S. culture war.

Half a century ago, Allen Dulles said it openly, “We should start with the youth, place our bets on the young people, and let them become bad, mildewed, and rotten. We want to make them shameless, mediocre minded, and cosmopolitan. We must achieve that.”

Nixon also gave a straightforward statement, “Entering into the 21st century, the cost of military intervention will be even higher. Economic power and ideological appeal will become the decisive factors. The ideological seeds sown by cultural expansion and infiltration will one day form a bud [and blossom into] peaceful evolution.”

During the Clinton Administration, the U.S. CIA had fleshed out the China section of its operations manual, with an internal code of “Ten commandments,” which included:

· Using material things to lure and corrupt their young people and encourage them to despise and oppose what they have been taught, especially the communist ideology …

· Do propaganda work well, including movies, books, TV, and radio broadcasts; we are halfway toward success if they desire our lifestyle and our forms of entertainment and education;

· Continuously create news to vilify their leaders, and launch democratic movements at any time and any place;

· Use all resources to damage China’s traditional values, exterminate their morality, destroy their self-respect and self-confidence, and strike down their hard-working spirit …

To wage a cultural war to promote the U.S. ideologies, the U.S., on the one hand, builds high cultural barriers to non-Western nations; on the other hand it does everything to try to open up and occupy the cultural markets in these countries in the name of free trade.

In 1998, the Washington Post once bragged, “The largest export from the United States is no longer the crops grown in the ground, nor the products made in factories, but the mass production of popular cultural products, including movies, TV programs, music, books, and computer software.”

The U.S. Commerce Department data showed that, in 1996, U.S.’ software and entertainment products earned a total of $60.2 billion in the international market. That figure climbed to $100 billion in 1999 and $160 billion in 2001; it led all other industrial sectors in the country.

Today, under the cover of free trade, a large number of Western cultural products are flooding our market places, quietly and subtly shaping the ideas, lifestyles, and values of all segments of the Chinese population, especially the younger generation. Its influence is hard to measure.

Since China is lacking an effective mechanism to resist such an influence and provide positive guidance, accepting the Western culture consciously or subconsciously has been a norm in many young people’s pursuit of fashion and their expression of individuality. Guided by market-and-profit-driven mentalities, some mass communication platforms have proactively chosen to present vulgar and unhealthy cultural contents. At the same time, Western politically motivated religious infiltration is beginning to take shape and expand amid a weakened mainstream value system and a vacuum of beliefs in China.

Data shows that the total population of China’s Christians is quietly approaching one hundred million.

Video clip showing comment by Bi Jingjing, Vice President of the PLA National Defense University:

“Due to [China’s] lack of awareness and its inability to take action, some areas and some agencies are in chaos in their ideologies, standpoints, and organizations. In public opinion and in business operations, the Western ideas, theories, and standpoints are silently having a serious impact and gradually developing a dominant voice. This is an urgent issue. We need to study it seriously and to find a practical solution.”

The fighting on the ideological and cultural fronts is a form of combat, but without visible gun smoke. Nevertheless, its impact is often greater than that of a real war. The Party leaders have always maintained a heightened vigilance on this issue.

In 1957, comrade Mao Zedong stated, “The Imperialists said that they had no expectations for our first and second generations [to adopt their path]. How about the third and fourth generations? They had hope for them. Will the imperialists’ words work? I hope they won’t, but they might.”

Comrade Deng Xiaoping also pointed out long ago, “Don’t think that a little spiritual pollution is not big deal. … In the long run, the issue is about what kind of generation will take over our cause. It matters to the destiny and future of the Party and nation. We must not allow the decadent capitalist ideology to capture our young people. That is absolutely not allowed.”

Comrade Jiang Zemin also said, “For some time, the spread of capitalist ideologies, the delusion of the capitalistic slogans of ‘democracy,’ ‘freedom,’ and ‘human rights,’ and the growth of selfishness, money worship, and ethnic and historical nihilism are seriously eroding the body of the Party and messing up some people’s minds.”

Comrade Hu Jintao put it sharply, “The ideological front has always been an important battleground in our fierce fighting with the hostile forces. If this front were to have a problem, it could lead to social unrest and even to a regime change. When the hostile forces attempt to throw society into chaos or subvert the regime, they often start with breaking into the ideological field and messing with people’s minds.”

Comrade Xi Jinping said it profoundly, “The Western countries’ strategy to contain China’s development will never change. They will never want us, as a socialist power, to achieve a successful and peaceful development. On this issue we have to remain highly vigilant and hold no fantasies.”

The Third Front: Public Opinion and Ideological Infiltration

Make full use of modern information and communication technologies. Where the Internet is the core technology, implement a massive penetration of public opinion and ideology. Then prepare for political subversion

Nixon once said, “The media has become an important resource for our national power.”

Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said it more clearly, “Because it needs modernization, China will not reject Internet technology. This is our chance. We should use the Internet to bring American values into China.”

In January 2010, U.S. Senator Lugar published an article in the Foreign Policy magazine called, “Twitter vs. Terror.” In the article, he advocated that the U.S. State Department take advantage of the new Internet technologies to promote global freedom and to launch the “welcoming the new movement [technology].” Lugar confidently predicted, “This ‘welcoming the new movement’ will surely have a profound impact on young Chinese.”

At an Internet freedom speech, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explicitly mentioned, “We are also supporting the development of new tools that enable citizens to exercise their right of free expression by circumventing politically motivated censorship. We are working globally to make sure that these tools get to the people who need them, in local languages, and with the training they need to access the Internet safely.” [15]

In 2009, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected in the general election, which provoked widespread controversy.

To use the Internet to incite more public reaction on a larger scale, Hillary Clinton personally intervened in Twitter’s planned maintenance shutdown. She said, “And it is the case that one of the means of expression, the use of Twitter, is a very important one, not only to the Iranian people but now increasingly to people around the world, and most particularly to young people.” “I wouldn’t know a Twitter from a tweeter, but apparently, it is very important.” [16]

In the following days, more than 2 million tweets were sent out by half a million people in Iran. During the peak time, within an hour, over 200,000 tweets about Iran’s rallies and parades were spread. The information, expressing a clear position, was more specific and timely than a live TV broadcast. It quickly inspired strong reactions around the world, which were again fed back to Iran and led to more massive riots.

In July 2009, In order to continue to use communication tools to intensify the continuous strikes on the Iranian government, the U.S. Congress passed the Victims of Iranian Censorship Act, granting $30 million so that Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Farda, and the Voice of America could expand the broadcasting of the Farsi language into Iran. It also provided another $20 million for a new “Iranian Electronic Education, Exchange, and Media Fund,” which would aid Iranians in bypassing Internet censorship.

Video clip showing Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore praising the use of the Internet in Iran:

A great deal of evidence has shown that the control and use of the Internet has become the basic means and the major channel through which the U.S. government launches political strikes and political subversion in its target countries.

In December 2010, the video showing the social conflicts set off by the death of a Tunisian vendor was posted on the Internet. Through continuous fermentation, (this incident) caused massive social unrest. It eventually led to the downfall of President Ben Ali who had been ruling the country for 23 years.

The Tunisian incident, the subsequent outbreak of the Jasmine Revolution, and the chaos in the Middle East and North Africa are not only the classic manifestation of the result of the U.S.’s new media war; they are also a test and rehearsal for its future deployment of such a war model on a large scale. Undoubtedly, it is already aiming at China as its next target. This is not sensational.

Video Clip showing comment by Liu Xiaobei, the head of the Third Division of the PLA’s General Staff Department:

“The U.S. is the birthplace of the Internet. It has control of the core resources of the Internet. It has been applying a double standard toward Internet control: internally there is tight control; externally there is unrestricted and arbitrary abuse. With its absolute advantage over the Internet, the U.S. has been vigorous in promoting interventionism, strengthening ideological penetration, and secretly supporting hostile forces to launch different forms of sabotage and disruption against us. At the end of 2012, the population of China’s Internet users reached 564 million and the mobile users reached 420 million. As the Internet’s influence on public opinion continues to grow, it has become a new field and new platform for ideological combat. In this regard, we must not be complacent. We must seize the commanding heights of the Internet, act proactively, and make our voice the dominant force.”

Since this precision-guided weapon was introduced near the end of the Vietnam War, the U.S. government has favored it very highly. It is cost-efficient, has a low casualty rate, and exhibits the strategic efficacy of destroying a particular node or sabotaging the whole system. Currently, the precision strike has not only become the U.S. military’s main combat model; it has also profoundly impacted and re-shaped future wars. It is noteworthy that the U.S. government is successfully transforming this new form of military combat into a weapon of political combat.

In its foreign political battles, conducting precise evolution in the guise of the peaceful evolution theme has become an increasingly important tool for the U.S. In the eye of the American elites, like the military precision strike, precise political evolution is the least expensive, most destructive, most stealthy, and most cost-effective attack approach. For a long time, the U.S. has attached great importance to targeting the key sectors, key departments, and key personnel in our country in order to cultivate long-term influence and actively develop an agent group. They are very clear that the ideas and political positions of such key groups will determine the direction of China’s future.

To this end, on the one hand, the U.S. uses various pervasive infiltration activities to promote American values covertly, attempting to Westernize the thought process of government agencies gradually at all levels in China. The purpose is to make them think and act, consciously or unconsciously, in the way that the U.S. wishes them to think and act. On the other hand, the U.S. uses a variety of methods to induce and condone China’s leadership to engage in as much corruption as possible. Just as Allen Dulles once said, “We will covertly, but actively and continuously, promote the unconscionable officials to indulge themselves in corruption and bribery and totally abandon their principles. Bureaucracy and prevarication will be regarded as charitable acts, but honesty and decency will be ridiculed, despised by everyone, and become outdated stuff.”

The reality shows that the precise evolution through the above two means has become an important long-term offensive strategy that the U.S. government uses against China. During the implementation process, it may use flattery as an approach, offer favorable conditions as bait, hold some evidence as a method of blackmail, or find common interests as a way to form an alliance. In short, they engage in every possible act to draw, buy over, coerce, or incite those targeted Chinese officials and scholars to defect. They use this opportunity not only for the vigorous development of pro-U.S. forces and a “fifth column”; they also manufacture broad public opinion that blames the communist regime for being corrupt.

Video Clip showing comment by Wang Zhaotian, Vice President of the PLA National Defense University:

“Precise evolution is a selective, targeted evolution. The U.S. has a complete set of means to carry it out. However, without sufficient planted agents, it would be almost impossible to shape, control, and subvert a country, especially a big power. Mao Zedong once said, ‘External factors are conditions and internal factors are the source. External factors work through internal factors.’ It is because of this that the U.S. has always taken it as a top priority to train large numbers of agents in the targeted countries. There are many countries that lost vigilance in this regard and eventually suffered major blows.”

Video clip showing a dinner party:

This is what a French reporter videotaped when attending a dinner. The host was Bruce Jackson, a retired U.S. Army General. He now runs an organization called The Developing National Foundation for Democracy. The guest of honor at the dinner was the newly elected President of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili. Not only had he previously studied in the U.S., but what happened next also led people to believe that, for him and his country, the U.S. was by no means merely the host of this dinner.

In his speech, Saakashvili said, “For years, Georgia has been in bad shape due to corruption. It proves that a democratic system can be effective in this kind of place. We share common values with the American people and we will never forget the help that the U.S. gave us.”

When surrounded by reporters, Saakashvili said, “Russian military bases will certainly be withdrawn. As everybody understands it, there will no longer be a Soviet empire in any form.”(He suddenly noticed that Bruce was there listening): “Did I say something wrong?”

Bruce: “Not at all.” Bruce then said to the reporters, “Please let the President take a breath. He hasn’t had a glass of wine.”

A reporter asked Bruce, “Some people say you are the hand behind the revolution [in Georgia]?”

This is the print shop of a local non-government media in Kyrgyzstan. The printer actually has a label, “Property of United States Government, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor.” The magazine manager said that, because of a report that the magazine had published, the Kyrgyz government had cut off the power to the print shop ten days earlier.

A reader explained the report: “This is the mansion of President Askar Akayev. It is shown next to a photo of poor children.”

Upon learning that the power had been cut off, Senator McCain asked to be connected by phone of the Kyrgyz Minister of Foreign Affairs.
(1:16:20) 获悉印刷厂的电源被切断，麦凯恩议员下令接通吉尔吉斯外交部长的电话。

The Kyrgyz Minister of Foreign Affairs was on the phone, listening.

McCain said, “I am outraged by the forced shutdown of the power [to the print shop]. The incident reminds me of the Soviet times. This sort of information control is hard to imagine in a free society.”

The Kyrgyz Minister of Foreign Affairs was criticized for over an hour, and was not allowed to explain. Finally, McCain demanded that he extend an apology.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs said, “I deeply apologize. The government is committed to supporting non-government media.”

The next day, after the Minister of Foreign Affairs intervened, the power was restored. Twelve days later the “Tulip Revolution” broke out, and President Askar Akayev was forced to step down.

End of Video Clip

The reality is that, in today’s China, this kind of similar risk cannot be ignored. A few scholars and officials either advocate the Western neo-liberal economic theory or engage in reckless disposal of huge State-owned assets. As a result, the country has suffered from enormous economic losses and severe social consequences. Some government agencies even consciously or unconsciously use national resources to pave the way for Western ideological and cultural infiltration.

A small number of corrupt party members and political traitors either flagrantly harm the national interests to benefit Western interest groups, or publish anti-party, anti-socialist, and even traitorous remarks. It is astonishing. Their behavior not only violates Party discipline, but has also gone beyond the bottom line of the law.

Video Clip showing comment by Yu Shanjun, Head of the Security Division of the PLA General Political Department:

“In recent years there have been some serious cases in which some core vital military departments and local authorities have sold intelligence and committed treason. Some corruption cases are also directly linked to infiltration by domestic and foreign hostile forces. It often starts with commercial bribery at first, and then espionage follows. Particularly alarming is that those Western countries have also used the international financial system that they control to exercise tight control over the money that was transferred overseas [by the corrupt officials]. Some corrupt officials transfer stolen money offshore, thinking nobody will know. In fact, Western intelligence agencies store all this information in their databases. For a long time, the U.S. government and the military intelligence system has been collecting personal information about our senior cadres in the military to find their ‘prey.’ Therefore, to strengthen the prevention and punishment of this [infiltration], [we] must pay particular attention to the following. We must extend the battle against economic corruption to political corruption and we must extend the battle of anti-ideological evolution to anti-political evolution.”

The Fifth Front: Political Interference and Social Infiltration

Conduct political interference and social infiltration, actively cultivate the opposition forces, and covertly expand the social base and organizational base for political subversion (of our ruling party).

During different periods since the founding of the new China (since the communist party has ruled China), one can see the U.S.’ presence clearly behind all of the ethnic separatist forces against China and hear the U.S.’ voice in all ethnic separatist activities inside or outside of China. The U.S.’ political interference in China is not only consistent and constant but also open and violent.

A large amount of data from the U.S. suggests that it not only planned directly the armed rebellion in Tibet and the fleeing of Dalai Lama; it has also, on a long term basis, given a large amount of financial support to the separatist activities of the Dalai Lama group. For example, in the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. government provided as much as $1.7 million in annual support to Tibetan separatist activities.

Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. and other Western countries have changed their tactics to attack and distort Tibet’s actual situation and China’s Tibetan policy. They blame China on issues of ethnicities, religion, human rights, and environmental protection. They further increased the support to the Dalai Lama group. In recent years, the U.S. Congress not only approved $2 million in annual funding of economic aid to support the Tibetan government in exile; it has also repeatedly urged the U.S. government to provide another $2 million in special funding to the Dalai group. Relevant information shows that 90 percent of the fiscal income of the Tibetan government in exile is from Western countries that the U.S. leads. Between 1979 and 2001, the U.S. ignored the Chinese government’s strong opposition and invited the Dalai Lama to visit the U.S. 23 times. A U.S. Congressional representative even said, “It seems, to the U.S. leaders, that the Dalai Lama is a religious leader who can appear whenever we need him.”

Video clip showing the Dalai Lama denying that he is a politician.

Since the Chinese government banned Falun Gong, the U.S. has not only used different media to distort the facts in order to launch attacks against the Chinese government; it has also been providing them with financial support through human rights organizations, the Voice of America, and other secret channels. Each year since 2001, the Friends of Falun Gong USA has provided nearly $ 2 million in support to Falun Gong organizations. In July 2002, the U.S. House of Representatives wantonly passed a resolution introduced by a handful of anti-China members, which asked the Chinese government to stop the so called “persecution of Falun Gong.” This showed openly that the U.S. supports Falun Gong.

In 2005, with U.S. intervention, Rebiya Kadeer went to the U.S. The U.S. anti-China forces quickly brought her under their wing. On July 13, 2009, the U.S. State Department spokesperson Ian Kelly publicly acknowledged at a press conference that the World Uyghur Congress led by Rebiya Kadeer has been receiving funding from the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy. The report published by the National Endowment for Democracy confirmed that the World Uyghur Congress received $215,000 every year from the National Endowment for Democracy for alleged human rights research and promotion projects. It is the U.S. Congress that authorized and appropriated the endowment’s funds. Considerable evidence shows that this endowment organization, which self-claims itself to be an independent non-government organization, has in fact become a base for the U.S. government to export democracy, create turmoil, and carry out subversive activities.

Video clip showing Rebiya Kadeer talking to Western media reporters:

“The Chinese government is bent on the eradication of the two ethnic races, so both Tibetans and Uighurs should unite together, launch an appeal to the Chinese government for freedom, and actively seek international support.”

From beginning to end, the incident that occurred in Tibet on March 14, 2008, and the one in Xinjiang on July 5, 2009, were closely linked to the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy. Allen Weinstein, who drafted the bill to establish the National Endowment for Democracy, admitted candidly in an interview, “We are doing a lot of things today that the CIA was doing covertly 25 years ago.”

In addition to using these so-called NGOs to engage openly in incitement, sabotage, and subversion activities, a number of government agencies in the U.S. and other Western countries also engage in extensive infiltration in Chinese society using a variety of hidden ways.

The U.S. Consulate General in Hong Kong has a staff of more than 500 people.

The British Consulate General in Hong Kong has a staff of more than 400 people.

It is extremely rare for those two countries’ overseas consulate generals and embassies to maintain diplomatic missions of such a large size. Large amounts of data show that the functions of these two consulate generals have long gone beyond conducting foreign affairs for their countries. They not only interfere with our domestic affairs in Hong Kong; they have also become the forward bases for anti-China and anti-communism operations.

The June 4th anniversary rallies, July 1st protest parades, boycotts against national education, taking over the Central (Ferry Piers) Bus Terminus – all these activities against the Communist Party and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) government have both British and American Consulate Generals behind them. Meanwhile, recruiting Chinese officials as agents, collecting all kinds of information, and creating different public opinion bombs (to damage China) have long become an important function for them to leverage Hong Kong’s special environment to expand their penetration and infiltration.

In particular, we need to pay close attention to how the U.S. continues to target China’s military for political infiltration. Former U.S. military attaché Nelman [17] once wrote a secret report that shocked the U.S. top level officials who address how to influence the national strategy and military strategy of China. He said in the report that in the context of China’s modernization, its national strategy and military strategy are inseparable. The national military strategy must follow the national strategy. When the national military strategy fails and suffers defeat in a war, the national strategy will therefore also be questioned and end up in bankruptcy. To influence China’s national strategy and military strategy, the U.S. needs to ensure that the best brains in China stop thinking. Independent thinking is China’s scarcest resource. The U.S. wants to make this scarce resource rarer, until it vanishes completely.

Video clip showing comment by Wang Xibin, President of the PLA National Defense University:

“A number of sources indicate that the U.S. has raised the task of influencing the Chinese military’s political direction and political quality to the strategic level; it has also laid out specific steps to implement its strategy. Its main method is to infiltrate internally and apply pressure externally. Internal infiltration focuses primarily on fostering pro-U.S. and pro-democracy forces, while external pressure is primarily exercised through opposing the party’s absolute control over the military and advocating the nationalization and neutralization of the military. Going forward, it is most certain that the U.S. will take advantage of various opportunities, especially the increase in the number of exchanges between the two armed forces at all levels. It will put more effort into these two directions. In this regard we need to plan ahead and build a strong political defense line and ideological defense line.”

Today, China’s modernization is advancing vigorously. The revitalization of China is a major change that will transform the fate of a quarter of the world’s population. It is also the great practice of the socialist cause to explore and develop on its way to victory.

Comrade Hu Jintao pointed out, “The tasks we are shouldering in promoting the reform and opening up and in socialist modernization are arduous and difficult without precedent in the world. The scale and complexity of the conflicts and problems that we face in the reform, development, and stabilization process are rarely seen in the world. The challenges and risks in moving forward are also rarely seen in the world.”

The development achieved so far in China has not come easily. To sustain China’s development and reach the ultimate rise will be even more difficult. We must be very alert and realize that risks and challenges not only come from external sources, but a lot more from within. To win or lose in a contest depends not only on guarding against the opponent, but more critically on consolidating oneself.

President Xi pointed out profoundly, “In particular, we should grasp firmly the development direction of deepening reform in order to continue to push forward reform and opening up along the socialist path with Chinese characteristics. We should neither follow the old rigid closed-up path nor go astray along a path that would change our flag.”

In the second half of the last century, the Chinese Communists resolutely and rightfully made two historical choices at the critical moments that defined the fate of the nation. This has created a miracle in history by changing the world and making a quantum leap. Under the new historical conditions, what path should we explore to ride the waves, overcome the difficulties, make maneuvers, and eventually win and achieve national rejuvenation? The Chinese Communists who are shouldering this historical responsibility must provide their historical answer once again.

Endnotes:
[1] Youtube, “Silent Contest” (by the PLA National Defense University Information Management Center), Standard Definition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_8lSjcoSW8.
[2] The New York Times Online, “Strident Video by Chinese Military Casts U.S. as Menace,” October 31, 2013, http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/strident-video-by-chinese-military-casts-u-s-as-menace/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0.
[3] Global Times, “‘Silent Contest’ silenced,” November 17, 2013.
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/825489.shtml#.UtxY9rSIbm4.
Global Post, “China’s military produces a bizarre, anti-American conspiracy film (VIDEO),” November 2, 2013.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/china/131101/china-military-produces-bizarre-anti-american-conspiracy-video.
Diplomat, “Does China Want a Cold War?” November 5, 2013. http://thediplomat.com/2013/11/does-china-want-a-cold-war/.Chinascope, Anti-America Documentary “Silent Contest” Portrays How the U.S. Infiltrates and Subverts China, November 5, 2013.
http://chinascope.org/main/content/view/5914/103/.
[4] The English quote for the Christian Science Monitor article is based on the Chinese in the video. However, Chinascope did not find a relevant article from the Table of Contents for the August 15, 1989 issue of the Christian Science Monitor, which can be found here:
http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/basic/csm/contentmap/articles/1989-8-15.
[5] Although the direct quote could not be located, a quote can be found at docstoc, “Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on the collapse of the Soviet Union,” http://www.docstoc.com/docs/51717724/Former-British-Prime-Minister-Margaret-Thatcher-on-the-collapse-of-the-Soviet-Union.
[6] “On China,” Henry Kissinger, page 461.
[7] “End of History?” Francis Fukuyama.
http://ps321.community.uaf.edu/files/2012/10/Fukuyama-End-of-history-article.pdf
[8] “One central task and two basic points:” a basic guide-line that the Chinese Communist Party adopted since 1987. The central task is economic development. Two basic points are the four cardinal principles (the socialist road, the people’s democratic dictatorship, the leading role of the Party, and Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong thought) and the policy of reform and opening up.
http://www.china.org.cn/features/60years/2009-09/16/content_18535066.htm.
[9] “President Bush’s Second Inaugural Address,” http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4460172.
[10] Chinascope is not able to identify the person whose name was translated in Chinese as 埃德尔。杨。卡拉特米奇 in the video, or the organization that he manages.
[11] Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century.
[12] “A Distinctly American Internationalism,” Speech by George W. Bush, delivered at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Simi Valley, CA on November 19, 1999.
http://www.fas.org/news/usa/1999/11/991119-bush-foreignpolicy.htm.
[13] Xinhuanet, “U.S., China travel ‘different paths,’ share ‘common destination’: Clinton,” May 24, 2010.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-05/24/c_13312735.htm.
[14] “Enter the Dragon,” By Mary Timmins. Illinois Alumni Magazine, December 15, 2011. http://www.uiaa.org/illinois/news/blog/index.asp?id=379.
The subsequent quotes from Edmund J. James are translated from the Chinese in the video.
[15] “Internet Freedom,” Speech by Hillary Clinton, delivered at the Newseum in Washington, DC on January 21, 2010.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/21/internet_freedom.
[16] Alternet.org, “Hillary Clinton: Twitter Important for Iranian Free Speech.”
http://www.alternet.org/rss/breaking_news/62367/hillary_clinton%3A_twitter_important_for_iranian_free_speech.
[17] Chinascope was not able to identify the U.S. military attaché. The name Kerman is based on the Chinese 克尔曼in the video.